Should U.S. Presidents Have Fast-Track Authority to Get Things Done?


8109654_THUMBNAIL

Do U.S. presidents need a fast-track or should their power by sharply curtailed? Stanford Political Scientist Terry Moe, says to save our democracy, we have to make the U.S. government faster, more efficient, and more effective — and we can do that by expanding the power of the executive branch to use “fast-track” authority to approve all types of legislation. Moe, who’s the author of Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy, wants Congress to have the power to approve or deny these laws through an “up or down” vote but not to add amendments or filibuster their passage.

The Cato Institute’s Gene Healy says that non-libertarians of all political persuasions suffer from a “dangerous devotion” to the “boundless nature of presidential responsibility.” Healy, who’s the author of The Cult of the Presidency, says that instead of giving the executive branch more legislative authority, presidential powers must be brought back to their Constitutional limits.

At a Reason-sponsored Soho Forum debate held on March 17, 2020, Terry Moe and Gene Healy went head-to-head on this issue in a recent virtual Soho Forum debate, moderated by Soho Forum Director, Gene Epstein. It was an Oxford-style debate, meaning the winner is the person who moves the most people in their direction.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: “Still Life,” by ANBR

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3runazg
via IFTTT

Elizabeth Warren Wants To Break Up Amazon So It’s ‘Not Powerful Enough To Heckle Senators With Snotty Tweets’


sipaphotoseleven488950

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) accused Amazon of not paying its fair share in taxes during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday, which prompted the company to respond that it merely follows the tax laws created by Congress.

“If you don’t like the laws you’ve created, by all means, change them,” reads a tweet from Amazon’s account.

Warren did not appreciate the remark:

This is a classic example of saying the quiet part out loud. Warren inadvertently revealed that her crusade to hurt major tech companies is partly driven by personal animus: She wants to reduce the power of corporations so that they are no longer “powerful enough to heckle senators.”

In fact, everyone enjoys the right to “heckle senators,” if by “heckle,” we mean engage in constitutionally-protected political expression. Senators are elected representatives: They are supposed to be accountable to their constituents and the public more broadly. It is not “cancel culture” when people criticize Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.) for her previous enthusiasm for QAnon; similarly, there’s nothing sinister or harassing about Amazon clapping back at Warren.

On the crux of the matter, Warren is also wrong. It’s not true that Amazon pays “close to nothing in taxes.” It paid $162 million in federal taxes last year, and is on the hook for nearly a billion more. Amazon does take advantage of several pro-business policies that let it reduce its total tax liability: investing in research and development, tax credits and deductions, etc. The U.S. tax code is extraordinarily complicated, and it’s not surprising that massive corporations are able to find creative ways to hold on to more of their profits.

As Amazon pointed out, it is within Congress’ power to simplify the law. Better yet, local governments could cease the practice of bribing companies to get them to headquarter in specific cities. Neither of these options necessitates breaking up Amazon, which remains the second-most-trusted entity in the country after the military. Congress, the institution to which Warren belongs, has been ranked the least trusted institution for 14 straight years.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NW4niJ
via IFTTT

Quid Pro Joe? Biden Taps Wife Of Swing-Voter Joe Manchin To Federal Post Ahead Of Infrastructure Push

Quid Pro Joe? Biden Taps Wife Of Swing-Voter Joe Manchin To Federal Post Ahead Of Infrastructure Push

Quid Pro Joe?

Yesterday, reporters repeatedly pestered President Joe Biden with questions about whether the Senate should kill the filibuster (one reporter asked why Biden and the Senate would allow a “relic of Jim Crow” to remain, to which Biden replied that “electoral politics is the art of the possible”). As progressives wonder whether more moderate Dems will join their “end the filibuster” cause, it looks like President Biden has found another way around the problem of securing enough boats to pass his agenda (while keeping progressive moonshots like the Green New Deal out of reach).

Bloomberg reports that Biden is planning to nominate the wife of West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative “Blue Dog” Democrat and a critical senatorial swing vote, to a “regional economic development position.”

President Joe Biden plans to nominate Gayle Conelly Manchin — an educator and the wife of Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a key swing vote — to a regional economic development position after the lawmaker has emerged as a key swing vote in the chamber.

The White House said Friday that Gayle Manchin is Biden’s pick for federal co-chair of the Appalachian Regional Commission, an economic development partnership between the federal government and 13 states, including West Virginia, where the senator and his wife reside.

Manchin and his wife have been married for more than 50 years. Their daughter, Mylan CEO Heather Bresch, made headlines back in 2016 when her company jacked up the price of epipens.

As BBG reminds us, Manchin is “the foremost Democratic swing vote in the chamber.” Since the Senate is evenly split between the GOP and Democrats, VP Kamala Harris must be relied upon to cast the tiebreaking vote. But when Manchin votes with Republicans, he can single-handedly stymie the Democratic Agenda. This ability has earned him the ire of progressives. which is evenly split between the parties but is controlled by Democrats because Vice President Kamala Harris breaks ties. As a result, Manchin holds significant sway in Biden’s ability to pass legislation.

It’s pretty clear what Biden is doing here: while BBG points out that Gayle Manchin is technically qualified for a position like this – she “served previously on the State Board of Education, and chairs Reconnecting McDowell, an initiative in West Virginia run by the American Federation of Teachers. She also served as secretary for the West Virginia Office of Education and the Arts and holds two graduate degrees” – the timing factor is hard to ignore.

For the past few weeks, Manchin has been telling reporters he wants Democrats to push through Biden’s upcoming $3 trillion infrastructure/climate package through regular order instead of through reconciliation, a budget process that would allow a mammoth infrastructure package to pass with just 50 votes by circumventing the fillibuster. Maybe now, Manchin will keep quiet, and simply show up to vote when the time comes.

Manchin has already flexed his newfound power in Washington. He has already successfully scuppered one of Biden’s cabinet nominees, Neera Tandan, who was nominated for OMB chief.

Is this how you bribe a senator?

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/26/2021 – 12:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39hyEQC Tyler Durden

Video Shows Saudi Red Sea Oil Terminal Ablaze After Fresh Drone Attack

Video Shows Saudi Red Sea Oil Terminal Ablaze After Fresh Drone Attack

Video has emerged of the aftermath of yet another Yemeni Houthi drone and missile attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. A Houthi military statement has since confirmed it was behind the sabotage operation targeting key Saudi sites.

In the early hours of Friday a statement from the Saudi Oil Ministry confirmed that an oil terminal on the kingdom’s Red Sea coast was struck by bomb-laden drones out of Yemen

As a result an oil terminal in Jizan, which lies just north of the Sauid-Yemen border, was engulfed in fire but which left no casualties. As cited in state-run SPA, a Saudi spokesman condemned the “cowardly attack against vital installations”.

The statement further underscored that these ongoing and ramped-up attacks, multiple of which have occurred within just the past month, “not only target the Kingdom, but also petroleum exports, the stability of energy supply to the world, freedom of world trade, as well as the global economy.”

Unconfirmed social media videos which circulated in the aftermath showed flames shooting high over the Jizan facility. 

The port city has actually been targeted many times, and has a new high-tech refinery which is described as follows: “Jizan is home to a new refinery and port facilities for the energy giant Saudi Arabian Oil Co. The refinery, with a capacity of 400,000 barrels a day, sent its first shipment abroad last year.”

As MarketWatch notes: “Benchmark Brent crude BRNK21, 3.54% rose to over $62 a barrel in early trading Friday after the attack. Energy prices have risen recently off growing demand as coronavirus vaccinations increase and Egypt’s Suez Canal remains closed due to a massive container ship wedged across the vital waterway.”

Later in the day Yemen’s Houthis took responsibility for the Jizan attack while also claiming others in a broader and “successful” multi-pronged operation…

As we detailed at the start of this week, the Saudi military announced it’s taking additional steps to protect its oil installations. It initiated within past days the “Confrontation 4” joint exercises which were geared specifically toward raising “readiness” to thwart future “terrorist attacks” on Saud energy and resource infrastructure.

This comes as fears grow that another major “Iran-sponsored attack” on Saudi oil processing sites, such as occurred with the major 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack, could cause the price of crude to skyrocket. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/26/2021 – 12:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39hyEjA Tyler Durden

Should U.S. Presidents Have Fast-Track Authority to Get Things Done?


8109654_THUMBNAIL

Do U.S. presidents need a fast-track or should their power by sharply curtailed? Stanford Political Scientist Terry Moe, says to save our democracy, we have to make the U.S. government faster, more efficient, and more effective — and we can do that by expanding the power of the executive branch to use “fast-track” authority to approve all types of legislation. Moe, who’s the author of Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy, wants Congress to have the power to approve or deny these laws through an “up or down” vote but not to add amendments or filibuster their passage.

The Cato Institute’s Gene Healy says that non-libertarians of all political persuasions suffer from a “dangerous devotion” to the “boundless nature of presidential responsibility.” Healy, who’s the author of The Cult of the Presidency, says that instead of giving the executive branch more legislative authority, presidential powers must be brought back to their Constitutional limits.

At a Reason-sponsored Soho Forum debate held on March 17, 2020, Terry Moe and Gene Healy went head-to-head on this issue in a recent virtual Soho Forum debate, moderated by Soho Forum Director, Gene Epstein. It was an Oxford-style debate, meaning the winner is the person who moves the most people in their direction.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

Music: “Still Life,” by ANBR

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3runazg
via IFTTT

The Snyder Cut of Justice League Is an Internet Fan Theory Come to Life


snyder-cut-justice

One way to look at the emergence of the so-called Snyder Cut—director Zack Snyder’s personally approved four-hour version of his superhero epic Justice League, which hit HBO Max last week—is as a victory for fans and fan culture. 

The film, which initially hit theaters (remember those) in 2016, had reportedly been bogged down by production trouble, with studio executives apparently worried by the reported three-hour length and the grim, grandiose aesthetic of director Zack Snyder. Justice League was the first movie to feature a full-fledged team-up between five members of the DC Comics universe, and was, in theory, DC’s answer to the success of Marvel’s comic book–derived movies, in particular the studio’s Avengers franchise. But Marvel was scoring hit after hit with a light, quippy, almost sitcom-like approach to superheroes. So after Snyder departed the production due to a personal tragedy, it wasn’t much of a surprise when the studio brought on none other than Joss Whedon, the writer and director of the first two Avengers films, to rework the DC team-up film—with a mandate to make it lighter, more self-aware, and shorter. 

What emerged was certainly shorter, coming in at just under two hours. But it was also derided—rightly, in my view—by fans and critics alike as slapdash and hectic, an aesthetic travesty marred by shoddy effects work and pedestrian production values. It was, in internet parlance, a dumpster fire. 

Typically, the only response to this sort of blockbuster disaster would have been to move on and accept that the damage had been done. Once a movie has been made, it cannot be unmade, or remade.

But word spread that Snyder had saved a version of his own, far longer cut on his laptop—and over time, fans began to clamor to see what the director had intended, backing the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut hashtag on Twitter and elsewhere. 

Snyder, it’s worth noting, is not exactly beloved by the film and culture writing establishment, and so there were social media clashes and think pieces and mean tweets and more think pieces and then even more tweets and probably some more think pieces, because that’s how this sort of flame war tends to proceed. The whole thing ended up being coded as a kind of struggle between supposedly toxic implicitly right-wing fans who adore Snyder’s simple-minded brutality and more enlightened critics who, in this narrative, don’t.

More often than not, this debate was tiresome, as these sorts of internet skirmishes tend to be, a debate about political symbols that too often overlooked the actual film and filmmaker in question. (Admittedly, this was somewhat inevitable since until last week no one in the public could actually see Snyder’s film.) But eventually, Snyder himself joined the campaign, and the studio agreed to give the director—who had apparently been shielded from ever seeing the theatrical version—a reported $70 million to rework the film according to his own specifications. The decision was part fan service, part streaming platform stunt, a bid to draw in viewers to a new platform that needed signature content. 

Snyder’s fans had spent years clamoring for the release of an alternate cut of a movie, but in many ways their movement resembled a modern political activist cause: They had waged a ground-up, internet-era activist campaign, built on a hashtag, intended to force those in power to reverse course on what they perceived as a terrible decision. In this way, at least, there was something deeply political, or at least politics-adjacent, about the Snyder Cut drive. And somewhat improbably, the fans won. 

One reason why they won is because of the shifting dynamic between fans and studios, in which studios, inundated by online feedback from highly motivated fan factions, shift plans accordingly; the internet has become a kind of always-on focus group that, for better and for worse, allows both politicians and purveyors of popular culture to constantly test and tweak their messages accordingly.

Another reason, however, is that the medium itself has changed. The original Justice League was intended primarily as a theatrical experience, and thus it was made to conform to the expectations and traditions of theatrically exhibited features—which is one of the reasons it was cut so short. 

But Zack Snyder’s Justice League, in all of its four-hour glory, is a streaming experience through and through, one that partakes in the opportunities for expanded length and episodic, serial storytelling that work best on streaming. 

In its own way, it is perhaps the ultimate example of the streaming experience, the most fully realized product of the streaming era: While it’s at least possible to imagine even the most niche, specialized streaming series running on traditional cable networks, something like the Snyder Cut would have been unthinkable anywhere in the TV landscape of 10 years ago. Perhaps it would have found a release on DVD, where director’s cuts and extended editions were released for a while, but otherwise there simply would have been no home for it. There was no format that would make space for its unwieldy excess. 

And that’s why I think it’s not enough to call the release of Zack Snyder’s Justice League a victory for fans. It is, but it’s also a product of a shifting format, a medium in flux, that is evolving not only to give us more material—via what we have come to know as Peak TV—but different kinds of material, blending the features of TV and feature filmmaking and miniseries into something that, in the case of the Snyder Cut, doesn’t quite fit neatly into any category. 

Snyder’s Justice League transforms the truly awful two-hour superhero movie that Whedon slapped together after Snyder’s departure into something that is maybe not quite good—or at least not to my personal taste—but is nonetheless quite fascinating. Because what you get to see is the sprawl and scale of a director’s vision for a big-budget blockbuster in a maximalist way that just doesn’t ever make it to the big screen, and that the traditional feature format couldn’t really contain. It’s basically an internet fan theory come to life. The internet, and the economics of streaming, birthed a collective online fantasy into watchable reality.

Two years ago, I wrote an essay about the evolution of TV formats and platforms titled, “Nobody Knows What Television Is Anymore.” But maybe—just maybe—this is it?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3daUZjD
via IFTTT

Cable Rallies As EU, UK Near Landmark Deal On Financial Regulation

Cable Rallies As EU, UK Near Landmark Deal On Financial Regulation

Cable rallied Friday afternoon on the news that, days after striking a reciprocity deal to ensure adequate supplies of COVID jabs for EU member states, London and Brussels are on the cusp of a high-level agreement on a new regulatory framework for financial regulation that could revive London-based firms’ access to European markets.

Investors have been closely watching for news about the deal on financial regulation, which was left out of the original Brexit trade deal, and has been seen as  a major risk for the British financial services industry, which has already suffered a wave of defections as foreign firms have moved more of their European workforce to within the EU (Dublin and Warsaw have been two popular locations).

According to Bloomberg, which broke the news, the two sides are proposing “a joint forum for discussing regulations and sharing information.” In its current form,the forum would lead to “informal consultations concerning decisions to adopt, suspend or withdraw equivalence,” according to the draft. “Equivalence” is a hot-button issue and anathema to Brexiteers, who are averse to ceding any regulatory control to Brussels.

The pound rallied against the euro on the news, and against the dollar as well.

Since the start of the year, London-based firms have been blocked from operating in the block as Brexit officially took effect following the end of the transition period. The European Commission told EU ministers at a meeting earlier this week that the proposal is based on the framework the EU currently has with the U.S., according to a diplomatic note seen by Bloomberg. A spokesman for 10 Downing Street said “talks are taking place between officials and we won’t be giving a running commentary whist they are ongoing.”

However, whether the deal will lead to more cooperation remains unclear. The two sides could still reject that approach in favor of increased independence.

In other news, during a video summit on Thursday, EU leaders gave lukewarm support to a plan to better control the exports of shots to the rest of the world, as European Commission head tweeted that Brussels was acting to ensure Europeans receive their “fair share” of new jabs.

In keeping with this decision, a vaccine factory in the Netherlands at the center of the spat over AstraZeneca jabs between London and Brussels has been given the go ahead by the European Medicines Agency to begin supplying Astra jabs to the EU, after European leaders asked the company to fulfill the rest of the EU’s order of jabs, which have been plagued by production delays. The EMA said on Friday that the Leiden factory, run by subcontractor called Halix, had finally been approved for production and export of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, bringing the total number of factories making the vaccine in Europe to four, per the FT.

At the same time, Norway has joined nearby Denmark in extending its halt on AstraZeneca jabs, the latest sign that a paucity of vaccine supplies isn’t the only obstacle to boosting the vaccination rate.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/26/2021 – 12:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31mb28W Tyler Durden

Elizabeth Warren Wants To Break Up Amazon So It’s ‘Not Powerful Enough To Heckle Senators With Snotty Tweets’


sipaphotoseleven488950

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) accused Amazon of not paying its fair share in taxes during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday, which prompted the company to respond that it merely follows the tax laws created by Congress.

“If you don’t like the laws you’ve created, by all means, change them,” reads a tweet from Amazon’s account.

Warren did not appreciate the remark:

This is a classic example of saying the quiet part out loud. Warren inadvertently revealed that her crusade to hurt major tech companies is partly driven by personal animus: She wants to reduce the power of corporations so that they are no longer “powerful enough to heckle senators.”

In fact, everyone enjoys the right to “heckle senators,” if by “heckle,” we mean engage in constitutionally-protected political expression. Senators are elected representatives: They are supposed to be accountable to their constituents and the public more broadly. It is not “cancel culture” when people criticize Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.) for her previous enthusiasm for QAnon; similarly, there’s nothing sinister or harassing about Amazon clapping back at Warren.

On the crux of the matter, Warren is also wrong. It’s not true that Amazon pays “close to nothing in taxes.” It paid $162 million in federal taxes last year, and is on the hook for nearly a billion more. Amazon does take advantage of several pro-business policies that let it reduce its total tax liability: investing in research and development, tax credits and deductions, etc. The U.S. tax code is extraordinarily complicated, and it’s not surprising that massive corporations are able to find creative ways to hold on to more of their profits.

As Amazon pointed out, it is within Congress’ power to simplify the law. Better yet, local governments could cease the practice of bribing companies to get them to headquarter in specific cities. Neither of these options necessitates breaking up Amazon, which remains the second-most-trusted entity in the country after the military. Congress, the institution to which Warren belongs, has been ranked the least trusted institution for 14 straight years.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NW4niJ
via IFTTT

Citron Research’s Left Calls Root ‘The Next Big Short Squeeze’ 

Citron Research’s Left Calls Root ‘The Next Big Short Squeeze’ 

One of the most prolific and best-known short sellers in the world, Andrew Left of Citron Research, published a new report that claims heavily-shorted Auto-insurer Root Inc. could be the next big short squeeze. 

Left published the report on Thursday that said Root has “short interest as a % of float now between 44% and 79%. He said, “ROOT is now the most highly shorted stock with a market cap above $1 billion in North America.” 

“We believe Root is a misunderstood short,” he said, calling the six-year-old company a “disruptive tech company” whose shares should be trading much higher. 

ROOT jumped 15% in Friday’s cash session as of 1124 ET. 

To view Left’s full report of Root read here: 

 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 03/26/2021 – 11:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3tQDXy2 Tyler Durden

The Snyder Cut of Justice League Is an Internet Fan Theory Come to Life


snyder-cut-justice

One way to look at the emergence of the so-called Snyder Cut—director Zack Snyder’s personally approved four-hour version of his superhero epic Justice League, which hit HBO Max last week—is as a victory for fans and fan culture. 

The film, which initially hit theaters (remember those) in 2016, had reportedly been bogged down by production trouble, with studio executives apparently worried by the reported three-hour length and the grim, grandiose aesthetic of director Zack Snyder. Justice League was the first movie to feature a full-fledged team-up between five members of the DC Comics universe, and was, in theory, DC’s answer to the success of Marvel’s comic book–derived movies, in particular the studio’s Avengers franchise. But Marvel was scoring hit after hit with a light, quippy, almost sitcom-like approach to superheroes. So after Snyder departed the production due to a personal tragedy, it wasn’t much of a surprise when the studio brought on none other than Joss Whedon, the writer and director of the first two Avengers films, to rework the DC team-up film—with a mandate to make it lighter, more self-aware, and shorter. 

What emerged was certainly shorter, coming in at just under two hours. But it was also derided—rightly, in my view—by fans and critics alike as slapdash and hectic, an aesthetic travesty marred by shoddy effects work and pedestrian production values. It was, in internet parlance, a dumpster fire. 

Typically, the only response to this sort of blockbuster disaster would have been to move on and accept that the damage had been done. Once a movie has been made, it cannot be unmade, or remade.

But word spread that Snyder had saved a version of his own, far longer cut on his laptop—and over time, fans began to clamor to see what the director had intended, backing the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut hashtag on Twitter and elsewhere. 

Snyder, it’s worth noting, is not exactly beloved by the film and culture writing establishment, and so there were social media clashes and think pieces and mean tweets and more think pieces and then even more tweets and probably some more think pieces, because that’s how this sort of flame war tends to proceed. The whole thing ended up being coded as a kind of struggle between supposedly toxic implicitly right-wing fans who adore Snyder’s simple-minded brutality and more enlightened critics who, in this narrative, don’t.

More often than not, this debate was tiresome, as these sorts of internet skirmishes tend to be, a debate about political symbols that too often overlooked the actual film and filmmaker in question. (Admittedly, this was somewhat inevitable since until last week no one in the public could actually see Snyder’s film.) But eventually, Snyder himself joined the campaign, and the studio agreed to give the director—who had apparently been shielded from ever seeing the theatrical version—a reported $70 million to rework the film according to his own specifications. The decision was part fan service, part streaming platform stunt, a bid to draw in viewers to a new platform that needed signature content. 

Snyder’s fans had spent years clamoring for the release of an alternate cut of a movie, but in many ways their movement resembled a modern political activist cause: They had waged a ground-up, internet-era activist campaign, built on a hashtag, intended to force those in power to reverse course on what they perceived as a terrible decision. In this way, at least, there was something deeply political, or at least politics-adjacent, about the Snyder Cut drive. And somewhat improbably, the fans won. 

One reason why they won is because of the shifting dynamic between fans and studios, in which studios, inundated by online feedback from highly motivated fan factions, shift plans accordingly; the internet has become a kind of always-on focus group that, for better and for worse, allows both politicians and purveyors of popular culture to constantly test and tweak their messages accordingly.

Another reason, however, is that the medium itself has changed. The original Justice League was intended primarily as a theatrical experience, and thus it was made to conform to the expectations and traditions of theatrically exhibited features—which is one of the reasons it was cut so short. 

But Zack Snyder’s Justice League, in all of its four-hour glory, is a streaming experience through and through, one that partakes in the opportunities for expanded length and episodic, serial storytelling that work best on streaming. 

In its own way, it is perhaps the ultimate example of the streaming experience, the most fully realized product of the streaming era: While it’s at least possible to imagine even the most niche, specialized streaming series running on traditional cable networks, something like the Snyder Cut would have been unthinkable anywhere in the TV landscape of 10 years ago. Perhaps it would have found a release on DVD, where director’s cuts and extended editions were released for a while, but otherwise there simply would have been no home for it. There was no format that would make space for its unwieldy excess. 

And that’s why I think it’s not enough to call the release of Zack Snyder’s Justice League a victory for fans. It is, but it’s also a product of a shifting format, a medium in flux, that is evolving not only to give us more material—via what we have come to know as Peak TV—but different kinds of material, blending the features of TV and feature filmmaking and miniseries into something that, in the case of the Snyder Cut, doesn’t quite fit neatly into any category. 

Snyder’s Justice League transforms the truly awful two-hour superhero movie that Whedon slapped together after Snyder’s departure into something that is maybe not quite good—or at least not to my personal taste—but is nonetheless quite fascinating. Because what you get to see is the sprawl and scale of a director’s vision for a big-budget blockbuster in a maximalist way that just doesn’t ever make it to the big screen, and that the traditional feature format couldn’t really contain. It’s basically an internet fan theory come to life. The internet, and the economics of streaming, birthed a collective online fantasy into watchable reality.

Two years ago, I wrote an essay about the evolution of TV formats and platforms titled, “Nobody Knows What Television Is Anymore.” But maybe—just maybe—this is it?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3daUZjD
via IFTTT